Subject: [ietf-dkim] DKIM and mailing lists

From: "John R. Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 11 May 2011 13:36:47 -0400

I realize it's a little late, but here's what I think the MLM document 
should have said:

 	http://www.taugh.com/draft-levine-mlm-minus-00.html

I shamelessly stole Murray's intro sections, but you should blame me for 
the whole thing, borrowed or otherwise.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 15:05:26 -0400

> the whole thing, borrowed or otherwise.

John, you never cease to surprise me!

Change that stupid section 2. background last paragraph to one tells 
the "truth" and it is 100% compatibility with everyone needs, 
consistent with all documents and you got my endorsement in this 
simplified, straight to the point, more realistic MLM informative I-D.

How about this paragraph replacing text (edit at will):

    DKIM provides a mechanism which allows for the separation of
    the authorized relationship of the identity of the message
    signer from any other agent or user identity, including
    the originating author domain.  This is vital issue in MLM
    environments which is known to take control of submissions
    with altered distributions.  This requires MLM to have
    some independent and autonomy in deciding how to resign
    list distribution in order to restore DKIM integrity and
    pass signer trust to the MLM list domain.

That original background last paragraph text just isn't the "truth" 
and it doesn't fit with the other discussions regarding Author Domains 
and references to ADSP - can't have it both ways.

-- 
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 16:16:53 -0400

> the "truth" and it is 100% compatibility with everyone needs,

It's unnecessary and unwelcome to call what other people write "stupid".

It's also the case that while you think it doesn't "tell the truth",
it seems to me that everything in that paragraph is an accurate
assessment of what's in the DKIM base spec, and agrees with rough
consensus of the working group.

Barry, as ... as Barry

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 11 May 2011 20:35:13 -0000

>It's unnecessary and unwelcome to call what other people write "stupid".

FYI, that section is taken verbatim from the MLM draft that Barry sent
off yesterday.  I guess now we know who read it and who didn't.

R's,
John

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 17:33:59 -0400

> It's unnecessary and unwelcome to call what other people 

I can see where calling it stupid is unwelcome.

> consensus of the working group.

I don't agree, it is technically incorrect with false conclusions that 
is unmatched anyway else and if that wasn't true than you won't need 
any discussions regarding Author Domains for this document for that 
matter.

After all, that was the original purpose of this MLM I-D effort when 
many people had express concerns with the MLM/DKIM conflicts and lack 
of respect for ADSP and me showing real examples for the 
interoperability problem - it was only then that gave life to this 
document.

Rough consensus in the group really doesn't match the many concerns 
over the years with this issue and its unfortunate they aren't around 
anymore to express their input.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 14:41:23 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Hector Santos
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 2:34 PM
> To: Barry Leiba
> Cc: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM and mailing lists
> 

That is not in fact the purpose of the MLM I-D effort.  Its focus, instead, was to discuss how DKIM signatures have survivability issues when transiting MLMs, and how ADSP can impact MLM operation, and how MLMs might be encouraged to play nicer in a DKIM world.  And it does all of those things.

The discussions about identities in a message were actually largely removed because they can't be substantiated.

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 14:44:26 -0700

On 5/11/2011 2:41 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> That is not in fact the purpose of the MLM I-D effort.

Since this has all been discussed multiple times before, I suggest it /not/ be 
discussed further, yet again.  The outcome won't be any better this time than it 
has been in the past and there's no new material.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 17:49:17 -0400

Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> That is not in fact the purpose of the MLM I-D effort.  Its 
> focus, instead, was to discuss how DKIM signatures have 
> survivability issues when transiting MLMs, and how ADSP can 
> impact MLM operation, and how MLMs might be encouraged to play 
> nicer in a DKIM world.  

Isn't that just generality stated?  Geez!

> And it does all of those things.

Then the background statement as it written is wrong.

> The discussions about identities in a message were 
> actually largely removed because they can't be substantiated.

Based on what you BELIEVE can't be substantiated on a ROUGH consensus 
basis only which does not remove the substantiated claims, years of 
proof of concept and the fact the APIs support it since day one, 
implementations such as support it, including major corporations like 
Microsoft support it!

So it is patently false that it can't be substantiated.

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 17:59:43 -0400

Shutting people up and scaring them out the WG hasn't worked for you 
very well nor removed the concerns.  hmmmmm, on second thought, I 
guess it has worked for you to rubber stamp documents even when 
broken.  This has been a long WG concern and problem to have out of 
scope considerations injected in DKIM that conflicts with everything 
else that was written. And for the record, I can't blame me - others 
have long stated the concerns of a single output focus has damaged 
DKIM - a single out that has no universally wide receiver payoff and 
non-existence (Trust Assessor) requirement.

Where are these batteries required?

---

From: "John R. Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 12 May 2011 01:47:32 -0400

> I think You miss to state the important point that MLMs usually preserve
> the RFC5322.From when sending the email to the subscribers except in
> digest mode where it replaces it by the list-owner(?) email.
>
> This is why ADSP fails, otherwise if the RFC5322.From was replaced we
> would have no issues with ADSP.

As I tried to say tactfully in the draft, mailing lists have worked just 
fine for 40 years, so if DKIM or ADSP don't work with mailing lists, it's 
not because the lists are broken.

ADSP seems to be carrying on the SPF tradition of claiming that it's 
everyone else's fault that it doesn't work.

R's,
John

---

From: Franck Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 05:36:45 +0000

---

From: Franck Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 08:49:28 +0000

I don't disagree with you, but it is important to state why ADSP fails,
because mailing lists keep RFC5322.From and as the IETF could put it, if
it is widely used then it has to be considered as a standard. ADSP can
hardly change standards, nor any other email policy.

---

From: Ian Eiloart <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:22:11 +0000

> not because the lists are broken.

I think I agree with this. I get very little spam from mailing lists, and very little spam purporting to be from mailing lists that I subscribe to. 

> everyone else's fault that it doesn't work.

On the other hand, I still get a lot of spam. To me, that's prima facie evidence that email needs fixing. I use, and like, the additional information that SPF publishers give me.

-- 
Ian Eiloart
Postmaster, University of Sussex
+44 (0) 1273 87-3148

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 08:38:57 -0700

> off yesterday.  I guess now we know who read it and who didn't.

He was just following instructions:

On 5/11/2011 10:36 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
 > ... but you should blame me for

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:44:24 -0400

> John Levine wrote:

> Dave CROCKER followed up:
> 

For the record, the old MLM was read as well Levine's poison pill MLM.

With no intent nor suggest the writer is stupid, writers do say stupid 
things and that paragraph was "stupid" then and it remains to be 
"stupid" as in a stupid manner; "he had stupidly defined a one way 
ticket for DKIM."

I have noted the issue before but I guess it didn't get any attention 
until it was called "stupid" - very funny.

That said, FWIW, I do apologize it was given that attribute and I am 
sorry it was read with an ill-intent in mind.  Everyone here are 
pretty smart and experience people. It would be "stupid" to think 
otherwise.  We simply have different views, and unfortunate strong 
views residing at point ends of the spectrum.

In strong opinion, even I would accept the single output modeling, you 
can't have a background description that says X is the only way, then 
have deviations of that X in the document and in other documents.

I tried to suggest how make it both functionally and technically 
correct with the general statement that:

    "X (DKIM) under Y (MLM) conditions can only work one way (RESIGN)
    by assigning Y trust when Z (Author Domain) has no policy against
    it."

We are talking a special stream (MLM) that historically and inherently 
breaks the integrity of mail (in an industry acceptable manner).  DKIM 
does not naturally fit into the MLM technology and thus the feasible 
"Pottery Theorem" solution is correct - resign.

But I object to the idea it is an unrestricted resigning model only 
and I firmly believe it will harm the general wide best interest of 
the IETF mail community and DKIM itself if we allowed this to be the 
one way ticket.

Is that any more clear?

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:42:07 -0400

> until it was called "stupid" - very funny.

It got attention; it didn't get consensus.  Sometimes, people don't
respond because they don't agree.  Sometimes what one needs are people
agreeing, and it isn't necessary for people to post with their
disagreement.

In any case, this issue is finished for now.  The MLM document is in
IETF last call.  Discussion will go to the IETF discussion list.

Barry, as chair

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:46:08 -0400

> I think I agree with this. I get very little spam from mailing lists,
>  and very little spam purporting to be from mailing lists that 
> I subscribe to. 

And I see a lot of spam in some of the list I have subscriptions to. 
Most of it is trapped though and discarded.

>> ADSP seems to be carrying on the SPF tradition of claiming 
>> that it's  everyone else's fault that it doesn't work.

> On the other hand, I still get a lot of spam. To me, that's 
> prima facie evidence that email needs fixing. I use, and like, 
> the additional information that SPF publishers give me.

Well, Levine never liked SPF since MARID, yet the world thought 
otherwise (especially in the high-value domain world) and have 
deployed SPF en masse.  I think his arguments have been inconsistent 
(see ending comment below).

The problem is that DKIM was exclusive redesigned to work for a 
natural integrity breaking MLM and unrestricted resigner market and 
you can only technically do this by ignoring all claims of originating 
integrity and originality and authenticity behind it.

John is saying for the most part:

       For 40 years, we (MLM) has been ignoring the
       originating integrity and originality of mail,
       ergo, any new mail claims of mail security and
       authenticity can be naturally ignored too.

Speaking as a MLM vendor, there is something functionally wrong with 
logic.  Its ok to say we being it one way for a long time, but its not 
ok to say I want to add something new and break inherent rules that 
come with the new.

Finally, DKIM event without ADSP also has the same arguments stated 
against SPF. DKIM + TRUST is what the key WG cogs want using a single 
output. This also comes with a same similar concept of the SPF policies:

     DKIM + Expected signer : PASS (-ALL)
     DKIM + Unknown signer  : Unknown (?ALL) or SoftFail (~ALL)

For example:

Suppose I have in my local receiver "DKIM trust" tables (a POLICY 
concept or ACL idea) to trust mail from signer MyBank.com:

   TRUST s=mybank.com

Thus all mail signed by mybank.com would be a locally certified PASS 
concept.

But what the faults?

First, Levine claims that whats good for me, is good for all users on 
my system. So any mail signed by mybank.com should be trusted at a 
SYSTEM LEVEL!  Thats a problem right there, but not unreasonable to 
have this scenario base on a Local Receiver Policy.

Realistically, I will probably only expect mail from MyBank.com to be 
for me or for certain users who are allowed to make the unique 
vendor/user claim.  So perhaps my local version of the trust table 
might be:

   TRUST s=mybank.com to:[email-masked]

or for the AUID advocates (defined as it is technically defined):

   TRUST s=mybank.com i=[email-masked]

This would be based on the BANK DKIM Policy of telling me to set that 
up which could come with a BANK DKIM POLICY based on Originating 
Author Domain:

   TRUST s=mybank.com odid=users.mybank.com

So if a message comes in purported signed mybank.com but doesn't with 
any of the user or author domain policies, you have what now?

     FAIL
     SOFTFAIL
     UNKNOWN

DKIM is the the same boat as any other policy based technology 
yielding indeterminate results.

---

From: Ian Eiloart <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 10:27:45 +0000

> "stupid" as in a stupid manner; "he had stupidly defined a one way 

I'm sorry, but in English, it's almost impossible to say that an idea is stupid without implying that the person who had the idea is stupid. 

I understand that the Spanish language may be different in this respect, in that it's much easier in Spanish to say that something bad has happened without assigning direct responsibility to some person involved.

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 11:21:34 -0400

Perhaps its a cultural thing.  You should hear the number of the times 
my Jewish wife had said; "oh silly! stop being stupid!" or New York, 
Miami Cuban or Ricans cousins saying "stuuuuupppiiiiid" (its a special 
prolonged funny emphasis), or Cuban exiles elders calling me a "Stupid 
Communist" just because I want the Cuban embargo to end, Elian going 
back to this dad) or an Italian uncle saying "was a studid (Dominoes) 
move!" but I really hate it when he calls me a "Paper Hat!"  Oh, 
really gets to me!

Whatever, I remain convinced that particular paragraph is "terrible," 
"wrong", "improper,"  even "incompatible."    But I can also see where 
that can imply, infer, suggest, insinuate or make people silently 
erroneously ponder the writer is a terrible, wrong and improper person 
writing incompatible material.

All of which, all this, is chippy and infers signs of disrespects.

Mucho Gracias, Ciao, Bonjour, Cheerio!, Catch you later, see ya on the 
rebound, Bye Bye!